If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Kinistin‚w Park - Quarters

Kinistin‚w Park will be built in two phases. The first phase is the block on the east side of the Armature (96 Street), between 102A Avenue to the north side of 103 Avenue. Phase 2 will also be along the Armature, but the exact location is still being finalized.

As part of The Quarters Downtown redevelopment, the City of Edmonton is working on a new park for the area, called Kinistin‚w Park. The goal of this park is to create a community space for people to gather and to attract further redevelopment to the area.

Project Goals and Objectives:

Improve connectivity to open spaces within the Quarters Downtown

Make the Armature and Kinistin‚w Park a focal point and a year-round gathering place in The Quarters Downtown

Use environmentally friendly sustainable landscape design practices

Ensure the publicly accessible open space is designed, maintained, and managed to help keep it vibrant, safe, and clean.

I have made a suggestion that it, Boyle Ren, and LMP all have 3-4 stations for outdoor fitness so that you can do a bit of a circuit. EPS and FIRE could use it many months of the year to have those specific eyes on the street as well as seniors in the area. I was overwhelmed by the amazing outdoor fitness parks in Shanghai.

Such a poorly constructed survey. Besides the above age discrimination, the lack of specifics made it difficult to fill out. I had no groundbreaking ideas for a new park other than greenery, fountains, security and multi-use capabilities.

ďYou have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.Ē - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

Such a poorly constructed survey. Besides the above age discrimination, the lack of specifics made it difficult to fill out. I had no groundbreaking ideas for a new park other than greenery, fountains, security and multi-use capabilities.

i passed 54 a long time ago (not sure whether that deserves a or a ) so my opinion might not matter much but...

a pocket park here might be quite lovely here one day when it's not in the middle of nothing but it's not going to be a catalyst.

the quarters plan was supposed to be a catalyst (and before that the plan for jasper east village).

the armature was supposed to be a catalyst (and will hopefully have an impact now that it's actually open and providing access instead of blocking it).

if we want a park connection to be a catalyst, instead of focusing on kinistinaw, the armature - or at least the pedestrian portions of it - should be extended north and curved west through mary burley park in a manner that then connects chinatown north with chinatown south and also ties in with the multi-use trail from clareview as it enters downtown. done right that would provide river valley access and connections to that network (including the proposed river walk etc.).

a pocket park here might be quite lovely here one day when it's not in the middle of nothing but it's not going to be a catalyst.

the quarters plan was supposed to be a catalyst (and before that the plan for jasper east village).

the armature was supposed to be a catalyst (and will hopefully have an impact now that it's actually open and providing access instead of blocking it).

My comments were along the exact same lines. And when they see the park has done nothing, they'll think up something else that'll definitely fire up development.

Not that a park, or "armature" are not great features for any neighbourhood, but I question their effect as being incentives to any type of development. As if landowners in the quarters have been sitting idle all these years waiting for the city to plop down a park before they move forward on anything.

I agree that a park should follow - not try to lead - additional redevelopment in the Quarters. Otherwise, the park risks attracting the type of crime and disorder that was entrenched in Boyle Street Park prior to its redevelopment.

In any case, a park should not extend any further north than 103 Avenue. Batoma Place, a relatively new affordable housing facility, is located on the NE corner of 96 Street and 103 avenue. It's hard to believe that anyone in the City thinks demolishing Batoma Place to make way for a park is a sensible idea.

I'd like to entertain everyone's ideas for how we encourage development of this area asides from this Park, Hyatt, and the Armature. We badly need an infill of mixed retail, commercial, and population influx here. I would love to see a little urban village of walkups and perhaps a few towers.

I'd like to entertain everyone's ideas for how we encourage development of this area asides from this Park, Hyatt, and the Armature. We badly need an infill of mixed retail, commercial, and population influx here. I would love to see a little urban village of walkups and perhaps a few towers.

I agree. The area needs more and bigger buildings to fill up the empty lots and also replace or upgrade some of the older, smaller and run down buildings in the area. It has a great location close to downtown, so it has potential. Parks are not some kind of magic talisman that are a cure for all ills.

I don't know the solution here, but perhaps the city should take the approach to residential development in this area that it took many years ago to downtown as a whole - sometimes it takes financial incentives to get the ball rolling.

Investing in and building infrastructure before development occurs has been proven to work, but it comes with many *.

I really hope that the artist tower gets going later this year to help begin the change, but it needs 3-4 more buildings along there to get things going.

I think you're right. I don't think a park is but they definitely make an area more attractive and "sellable".

Personally I feel you're going to see in the future legislation capping development to ensure certain amounts of outward growth of the city. Say; for this amount of population per square km we can develop and expand the city this much". It's bound to happen considering the way that we are growing is unsustainable and when that time comes centralized areas in proximity to mass transit will become much more equitable.

However I don't want to wait on bureaucracy and market economics. I want to do everything we can to force this area into appeal and we've got four good projects that will help do that. I'm just hoping investment in the core isn't tapped out due to the economy.

You don't want to wait for development to be politically prudent (aka bureaucracy) and you don't want to wait for the invisible hand of the market (economics), so what exactly are you hoping for? Philanthropy? Magic beans? Wishing on falling stars?

Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

You don't want to wait for development to be politically prudent (aka bureaucracy) and you don't want to wait for the invisible hand of the market (economics), so what exactly are you hoping for? Philanthropy? Magic beans? Wishing on falling stars?

Ah. Aren't you that guy that goes around commenting on things while not offering any substance to the conversation? If you read what I wrote I said those things all will take time - decades for the matter. So I'm okay with these ambitious redevelopment projects going up and doing what they're doing to revitalize the area.

I read what you write Noodle; you're capable of generating some good ideas from time to time. Instead of sarcasm I'd much rather hear your take on what can be further done to redevelop the area.

Ah. Aren't you that guy that goes around commenting on things while not offering any substance to the conversation? If you read what I wrote I said those things all will take time - decades for the matter. So I'm okay with these ambitious redevelopment projects going up and doing what they're doing to revitalize the area.

I read what you write Noodle; you're capable of generating some good ideas from time to time. Instead of sarcasm I'd much rather hear your take on what can be further done to redevelop the area.

Honestly, it's the tireless efforts of developers like Ken who'll do the most to revitalize the area, one small project at a time as the market supports it, not yet more grandiose & nebulous mass revitalization projects paid for by the public with little thought about the end result or the opportunity cost of continuing to artificially try and prop up Downtown in a city that frankly will never revolve around the core.

Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

However I disagree with you on the belief that this city will never revolve around our core. It eventually has to start working inwards. I won't pretend to be some industry expert; in fact I've only began studying urban development (on my own time and not in an academic setting) about a year and a half ago exiting university and moving from the country to the core. What I've seen from this city is that we are reaching a critical mass of outward expansion where long term forecasts are showing that we simply won't be able to manage and maintain all of our infrastructure from roads to schools without more density - we just aren't generating enough monetary capital to take care of our physical capital.

The core will literally be at the centre of this; and it will be developers taking the bold risks to make it happen. However; if I were a politician, I would work very hard ensure that we create sellable features and amenities for them. I don't want to see our city builders taking these risks, investing countless dollars into their projects, and ending up waiting decades for bureaucratic red tape and market economics to do their thing. I would want to see them get a return on their investment as quickly as possible so that they can move to their next project. That means developing parks, building competent mass-transit, creating plaza spaces for artists' marketplaces, disenfranchising illegal lots, ensuring these areas don't regress into drug-havens, and working together with these people - communicating with each other's needs.

That's why I'm receptive about hearing what others have to say regardless of what the stance is. My philosophy may be long-winded and pedantic here but I do believe it is vital to the health of our city that we develop these deserts, attract business large and small, taking care of our business leaders, and creating a population influx by any means necessary. If the can needs to be kicked then don't hesitate; just kick it.

The City's own most optimistic takes on future growth in the city has the hollowing-out of the core continuing unabated for the next 40 years. The most lofty of projections of growth in Downtown are absolutely dwarfed by the growth at the city's periphery. Even with the last 10-15 years of work on Downtown & over a billion in public spending we've barely been able to slow down the acceleration, much less reverse course.

Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

The City's own most optimistic takes on future growth in the city has the hollowing-out of the core continuing unabated for the next 40 years. The most lofty of projections of growth in Downtown are absolutely dwarfed by the growth at the city's periphery. Even with the last 10-15 years of work on Downtown & over a billion in public spending we've barely been able to slow down the acceleration, much less reverse course.

Spot on mate. I think the only way it happens is through legislation. I don't think a greenbelt is sensible; but I was thinking the other day about "per-capita rated" growth. Meaning that outward expansion can only happen so long as the city gets to a certain level of population density. Something like a floating green belt? If that makes any sense to anyone?

All I know is that we cannot continue on the course you laid out; something which we indeed ARE doing.

Except we are indeed continuing on the course that's laid out: Look at all that land we're amalgamating outta Leduc, earmarked for yet another "not-Downtown" employment node/nexus. City Administration knows what's going on & are planning accordingly. People will continue to move to new neighborhoods, predominantly in the SW & will continue to work primarily outside of Downtown. The amalgamation is the one way that they can tap into that growth, rather than have it go to the surrounding communities.

So long as Edmonton is bordered on all sides by municipalities & counties that have their own goals & aspirations any attempt to squeeze Edmontonians into a tighter space is beyond futile. And attempting to ram some urbanist agenda down their throats via legislation to make up for Edmonton's lack of proper urban planning would be political suicide.

Giving less of a damn than everÖ Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Please join us tomorrow between 4:30pm and 7:30pm at the Boyle Street Plaza to view two preliminary park designs and to share your comments on the designs. Also, please share this invitation with anyone you think may be interested.

Except we are indeed continuing on the course that's laid out: Look at all that land we're amalgamating outta Leduc, earmarked for yet another "not-Downtown" employment node/nexus. City Administration knows what's going on & are planning accordingly. People will continue to move to new neighborhoods, predominantly in the SW & will continue to work primarily outside of Downtown. The amalgamation is the one way that they can tap into that growth, rather than have it go to the surrounding communities.

So long as Edmonton is bordered on all sides by municipalities & counties that have their own goals & aspirations any attempt to squeeze Edmontonians into a tighter space is beyond futile. And attempting to ram some urbanist agenda down their throats via legislation to make up for Edmonton's lack of proper urban planning would be political suicide.

Per my comments at the open house last night (not made for the first time):

1. 96 Street needs to remain open to traffic IN BOTH DIRECTIONS all the way from Jasper Avenue to 103A Ave. That includes removing the bollards at Jasper Avenue even if that means 101A Avenue has to "dead end" at a cul-de sac or the lane to keep that intersection functional. This would also help the Hyatt Place immensely as getting to it now other than west bound on Jasper Avenue is awkward/problematic at best. If you need to limit access to Jasper, open the street and close the lane.

2. Where the street narrows in front of the park, take the bike traffic from the west/street side of the park to the east/lane side of the park if widening the street to provide two lanes of traffic through that block is no longer an option.

3. 1 and 2 will provide more visibility to and increase the traffic in front of the desired lane oriented retail fronting the east side of the park.

Adding eyes on the streets at this stage of the Quarters redevelopment is paramount, as is the provision of intuitive access that accommodates cars as well as pedestrians and bikes.

Selling the area to developers and lenders and tenants and customers - particularly for the first time - requires simple, direct and easy access if you want to show it off to those whom you want to buy in. As long as the Quarters stays hidden and disconnected and sequestered, it will continue to struggle no matter how nice some of the public elements you can't get to. Somewhere along the line the fact 96th Street is a street seems to have been lost. Even the new standards for "complete streets", continues to accommodate and not banish cars.